Which do you find most useful and why: Classical Realism or Neo-realism?
This essay will examine two key theories in international relations (IR), classical realism and
neorealism and specifically which theory is more useful in driving state behaviour and global
politics in relation to understanding IR theory. To understand which theory is most useful, it
is important to analyse what this means first. In terms of the word ‘useful’, some things this
would incorporate is how well each theory explains state behaviour, how well they predict
foreign policy outcomes, their ethical and normative implications and how they create real
world policies. This will allow us to compare and contrast these theories in how they
differentiate in significant IR concepts.
Classical realism is based on the notion that nations prioritise dominance and survival as
human nature is essentially self-interested and power seeking. Classical realist Hans
Morgenthau states, ‘realism is based on objective laws that have their roots in unchanging
human nature’ (Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, 2010). This theory believes that state
behaviour is highly influenced by motivations and ethical judgements of individual leaders
and human ambitions is what plays a key factor in the principle of international relations.
Neorealism, which developed from classical realism, differs. It shifts from blaming human
nature, to blaming the causes as being deeply rooted in the international system as the key
driver for state behaviour. Also, ‘classical realists differentiate between status-quo powers
and revisionist powers while neorealism regards states as unitary actors’ (Schweller, 1996:
155). Further, ‘neo-realists attempt to construct a more rigorous and scientific approach to
the study of international politics, heavily influenced by the behaviourist revolution of the
1960’s while classical realism confine its analyses to subjective valuations of international
relations’ (Georg and Sorensen, 2007: 75). This refers to neorealism shifting away from
focusing on individual leaders' judgements and motivations and instead towards developing
testable theories which explain patterns in international relations.
In terms of being more useful, classical realism does allow for insight and depth into how it
can illustrate reasons behind state actions by viewing it through human nature and moral
responsibility. As stated by Hans Morgenthau, ‘interest defined as power’ is a crucial law of
understanding human behaviour which highly influences individuals and states (Korab-
Karpowicz, W. Julian, 2010). This belief shapes political behaviour as being driven by the
search for power which comes from human instincts such as fear and the hunger for
dominance. This approach allows for causal explanations for important world events such as
World War two involving revolutionary figures such as Adolf Hitler’s desire for territorial
expansion integrated with his contradictory ideological vision of racial superiority as an
example of the type of leadership classical realism aims to explain. Morgenthau’s belief of
‘will to power’ can be analysed through Hitler and his ambition and complete moral disregard
from a classical perspective is seen not because of structural pressures, but due to his
individual desire for power. So, in its approach towards WW2, classical realism can become
more useful through providing a unique human aspect of analysing key leaders such as
Hitler and how his beliefs and ideologies shaped monumental world events, unlike
Neorealism which may interpret this as a power imbalance.
However, whilst the human centred classical approach is valuable, it fails to provide a full
explanation for consistency in international politics. Through the neorealism approach,
founded by Kenneth Waltz, structuring it around the international system rather than human
nature allows for a more universal explanation in IR rather than perhaps observing it through
a narrow viewpoint. Waltz states that an international system is categorised by anarchy
, meaning there is no general main authority that can enforce rules. This system motivates
states to act in a manner where it maximises their security and power to be able to survive,
without taking into consideration the self-interest of their leaders. From this emphasis on
structure instead of human nature, neorealism provides a more universal and complete
scientific explanation of state behaviour which can be generalised beyond a classical
idiographic approach.
What makes neorealism more ‘useful’ than classical is the consistency within its approach.
For example, its ability to explain balancing and alignment where states come and form
together against common threats. This is evident in The Cold War between the US and the
Soviet Union which saw multiple nations align with one or the other based on personal
interests. In comparison, classical realism focuses on a single leader's ethics lacking the
versatility to consistently explain global patterns. So, whilst classical realism can be
important in examining personal interests within human nature, unlike neorealism, it doesn't
allow for wide scale system behaviours and ever going global patterns to be observed in
today's unified and co-ordinated international system.
A significant aspect which makes neorealism more useful is its predictive power. Waltz's
anarchic international system mentions ‘states seek to ensure their survival’ (Waltz, 1979).
This focus on structure rather than personal interests sets it apart from classical realism
allowing for consistency in decision making, predictive judgements and patterns such as
power balancing and the formation of alliances. Examples include the Cold War dynamics
between the US and Soviet Union. Modern geopolitical tensions also represent neorealism
including the hostility between China and the USA, especially after Trump’s re-election.
China seeks to counterbalance the enormous US influence, while the US strengthens its
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) to counterbalance China’s expansion in the Asia-
Pacific. Neorealism’s predictive power is most useful as it allows for trends and patterns to
be identified in global politics which provides a framework for predictability.
In contrast, classical realism does not allow for the same amount of predictability due to its
heavy emphasis on human natured explanations as a result of individual self-interests and
ethical judgements. As stated, ‘state behaviour is shaped by commonly shared values and
norms’, and this is how flawed state behaviour is rooted as decisions are made based on
moral views by specific leaders at a specific time (Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, 2010). For
example, Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 would be credited to his ideological motives
and the possible threat of weapons of mass destruction. However, this substantial emphasis
on personal motivations is what creates difficulties of generalizability as different leaders
would likely react differently in the same situation.
So through neorealism’s systematic approach, it does not only make it more useful in
predictions, but also for creating policies. Through the emphasis on the ‘survival’, neorealism
allows policymakers to make decisions within security predicaments as well as forming
alliances. In comparison, where classical realism can allow for narrower idiographic
viewpoints, it can’t provide the same wide scale influence in policy making as neorealism.
This makes it more useful in terms of its predictive power and application for policymakers.
Neorealism can provide a high level of scientific objectivity; however classical realisms
unique aspect of ethical and normative inclusion can provide a more useful position when
observing moral discussions in international politics. Classical realists argue ‘that moral
considerations cannot be divorced from state actions and decisions’ (Baripedia, 2024). This
is significant as it views the state's actions as being closely linked to human nature. Classical
realism provides a more suitable approach when evaluating more humanitarian concerns
which shape foreign policy. Significant events such as Libya in 2011 can be used as an
example. Classical realists were motivated more heavily towards ethical concerns to create
This essay will examine two key theories in international relations (IR), classical realism and
neorealism and specifically which theory is more useful in driving state behaviour and global
politics in relation to understanding IR theory. To understand which theory is most useful, it
is important to analyse what this means first. In terms of the word ‘useful’, some things this
would incorporate is how well each theory explains state behaviour, how well they predict
foreign policy outcomes, their ethical and normative implications and how they create real
world policies. This will allow us to compare and contrast these theories in how they
differentiate in significant IR concepts.
Classical realism is based on the notion that nations prioritise dominance and survival as
human nature is essentially self-interested and power seeking. Classical realist Hans
Morgenthau states, ‘realism is based on objective laws that have their roots in unchanging
human nature’ (Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, 2010). This theory believes that state
behaviour is highly influenced by motivations and ethical judgements of individual leaders
and human ambitions is what plays a key factor in the principle of international relations.
Neorealism, which developed from classical realism, differs. It shifts from blaming human
nature, to blaming the causes as being deeply rooted in the international system as the key
driver for state behaviour. Also, ‘classical realists differentiate between status-quo powers
and revisionist powers while neorealism regards states as unitary actors’ (Schweller, 1996:
155). Further, ‘neo-realists attempt to construct a more rigorous and scientific approach to
the study of international politics, heavily influenced by the behaviourist revolution of the
1960’s while classical realism confine its analyses to subjective valuations of international
relations’ (Georg and Sorensen, 2007: 75). This refers to neorealism shifting away from
focusing on individual leaders' judgements and motivations and instead towards developing
testable theories which explain patterns in international relations.
In terms of being more useful, classical realism does allow for insight and depth into how it
can illustrate reasons behind state actions by viewing it through human nature and moral
responsibility. As stated by Hans Morgenthau, ‘interest defined as power’ is a crucial law of
understanding human behaviour which highly influences individuals and states (Korab-
Karpowicz, W. Julian, 2010). This belief shapes political behaviour as being driven by the
search for power which comes from human instincts such as fear and the hunger for
dominance. This approach allows for causal explanations for important world events such as
World War two involving revolutionary figures such as Adolf Hitler’s desire for territorial
expansion integrated with his contradictory ideological vision of racial superiority as an
example of the type of leadership classical realism aims to explain. Morgenthau’s belief of
‘will to power’ can be analysed through Hitler and his ambition and complete moral disregard
from a classical perspective is seen not because of structural pressures, but due to his
individual desire for power. So, in its approach towards WW2, classical realism can become
more useful through providing a unique human aspect of analysing key leaders such as
Hitler and how his beliefs and ideologies shaped monumental world events, unlike
Neorealism which may interpret this as a power imbalance.
However, whilst the human centred classical approach is valuable, it fails to provide a full
explanation for consistency in international politics. Through the neorealism approach,
founded by Kenneth Waltz, structuring it around the international system rather than human
nature allows for a more universal explanation in IR rather than perhaps observing it through
a narrow viewpoint. Waltz states that an international system is categorised by anarchy
, meaning there is no general main authority that can enforce rules. This system motivates
states to act in a manner where it maximises their security and power to be able to survive,
without taking into consideration the self-interest of their leaders. From this emphasis on
structure instead of human nature, neorealism provides a more universal and complete
scientific explanation of state behaviour which can be generalised beyond a classical
idiographic approach.
What makes neorealism more ‘useful’ than classical is the consistency within its approach.
For example, its ability to explain balancing and alignment where states come and form
together against common threats. This is evident in The Cold War between the US and the
Soviet Union which saw multiple nations align with one or the other based on personal
interests. In comparison, classical realism focuses on a single leader's ethics lacking the
versatility to consistently explain global patterns. So, whilst classical realism can be
important in examining personal interests within human nature, unlike neorealism, it doesn't
allow for wide scale system behaviours and ever going global patterns to be observed in
today's unified and co-ordinated international system.
A significant aspect which makes neorealism more useful is its predictive power. Waltz's
anarchic international system mentions ‘states seek to ensure their survival’ (Waltz, 1979).
This focus on structure rather than personal interests sets it apart from classical realism
allowing for consistency in decision making, predictive judgements and patterns such as
power balancing and the formation of alliances. Examples include the Cold War dynamics
between the US and Soviet Union. Modern geopolitical tensions also represent neorealism
including the hostility between China and the USA, especially after Trump’s re-election.
China seeks to counterbalance the enormous US influence, while the US strengthens its
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) to counterbalance China’s expansion in the Asia-
Pacific. Neorealism’s predictive power is most useful as it allows for trends and patterns to
be identified in global politics which provides a framework for predictability.
In contrast, classical realism does not allow for the same amount of predictability due to its
heavy emphasis on human natured explanations as a result of individual self-interests and
ethical judgements. As stated, ‘state behaviour is shaped by commonly shared values and
norms’, and this is how flawed state behaviour is rooted as decisions are made based on
moral views by specific leaders at a specific time (Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, 2010). For
example, Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 would be credited to his ideological motives
and the possible threat of weapons of mass destruction. However, this substantial emphasis
on personal motivations is what creates difficulties of generalizability as different leaders
would likely react differently in the same situation.
So through neorealism’s systematic approach, it does not only make it more useful in
predictions, but also for creating policies. Through the emphasis on the ‘survival’, neorealism
allows policymakers to make decisions within security predicaments as well as forming
alliances. In comparison, where classical realism can allow for narrower idiographic
viewpoints, it can’t provide the same wide scale influence in policy making as neorealism.
This makes it more useful in terms of its predictive power and application for policymakers.
Neorealism can provide a high level of scientific objectivity; however classical realisms
unique aspect of ethical and normative inclusion can provide a more useful position when
observing moral discussions in international politics. Classical realists argue ‘that moral
considerations cannot be divorced from state actions and decisions’ (Baripedia, 2024). This
is significant as it views the state's actions as being closely linked to human nature. Classical
realism provides a more suitable approach when evaluating more humanitarian concerns
which shape foreign policy. Significant events such as Libya in 2011 can be used as an
example. Classical realists were motivated more heavily towards ethical concerns to create
